Re: IPv6: numbering of point-to-point-links

2011-01-31 Thread Seth Mattinen
On 1/31/11 9:13 AM, Blake Hudson wrote: > > I setup a p2p /127 link and found that BGP would not peer over the link; > Changing to /126 resolved the problem. I never looked into it further > because I had intended to use /126 from the start. My guess is that > while BGP should be a unicast IP, Cis

Re: IPv6: numbering of point-to-point-links

2011-01-31 Thread Randy Bush
>>> I setup a p2p /127 link and found that BGP would not peer over the >>> link; >> on whose equipment and image? > This was with a cisco 7200 - IOS 12.4 over a HE tunnel. /me suspects tunnel

Re: IPv6: numbering of point-to-point-links

2011-01-31 Thread Gary Buhrmaster
On Mon, Jan 31, 2011 at 09:13, Blake Hudson wrote: > I setup a p2p /127 link and found that BGP would not peer over the link; > Changing to /126 resolved the problem. I never looked into it further > because I had intended to use /126 from the start. My guess is that > while BGP should be a u

Re: IPv6: numbering of point-to-point-links

2011-01-31 Thread Blake Hudson
Original Message Subject: Re: IPv6: numbering of point-to-point-links From: Randy Bush To: Blake Hudson Cc: nanog@nanog.org Date: Monday, January 31, 2011 3:26:26 PM >> I setup a p2p /127 link and found that BGP would not peer over the >> link; > on whose equi

Re: IPv6: numbering of point-to-point-links

2011-01-31 Thread Randy Bush
> I setup a p2p /127 link and found that BGP would not peer over the > link; on whose equipment and image? randy

Re: IPv6: numbering of point-to-point-links

2011-01-31 Thread Blake Hudson
> All of the (mostly religious) arguments about /64 versus any > smaller subnets aside, I'm curious about why one would choose > /126 over /127 for P-to-P links? Is this some kind of IPv4-think > where the all-zeros and all-ones addresses are not usable > unicast addresses? This isn't true in IPv6

Re: IPv6: numbering of point-to-point-links

2011-01-26 Thread ML
On 1/24/2011 4:20 PM, Ray Soucy wrote: That said. By not using the 64-bit boundary you may be sacrificing performance optimizations with today's processors that lack operations for values larger than 64-bits. Is this an issue for any known vendors today?

Re: IPv6: numbering of point-to-point-links

2011-01-25 Thread Tim Durack
On Tue, Jan 25, 2011 at 9:44 AM, Lasse Jarlskov wrote: > Thank you all for your comments - it appears that there is no consensus > on how this should be done. The best piece of advice I received when asking similar questions in the past is to allocate a /64 for every network regardless of it's po

Re: IPv6: numbering of point-to-point-links

2011-01-25 Thread Lasse Jarlskov
...@xs4all.nl] Sendt: 24. januar 2011 14:11 Til: Lasse Jarlskov Cc: nanog@nanog.org Emne: Re: IPv6: numbering of point-to-point-links > While reading up on IPv6, I've seen numerous places that subnets are now > all /64. > > I have even read that subnets defined as /127 are considered

Re: IPv6: numbering of point-to-point-links

2011-01-24 Thread Randy Bush
>> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-6man-prefixlen-p2p/ > All of the (mostly religious) arguments about /64 versus any > smaller subnets aside, I'm curious about why one would choose > /126 over /127 for P-to-P links? see above randy

Re: IPv6: numbering of point-to-point-links

2011-01-24 Thread Owen DeLong
On Jan 24, 2011, at 4:22 PM, Crist Clark wrote: >> RFC 3627 Actually makes it pretty clear. It's IPv6 think where the subnet-router anycast address is the prefix followed by all zeros. So, while IPv6 does not reserve the all-ones address, the all-zeroes address is still reserved. Owen

Re: IPv6: numbering of point-to-point-links

2011-01-24 Thread Crist Clark
>>> On 1/24/2011 at 5:18 AM, wrote: > On Mon, Jan 24, 2011 at 02:10:48PM +0100, Marco Hogewoning wrote: >> > While reading up on IPv6, I've seen numerous places that subnets are now >> > all /64. >> > >> > I have even read that subnets defined as /127 are considered harmful. >> >> RFC3627, with

Re: IPv6: numbering of point-to-point-links

2011-01-24 Thread Skeeve Stevens
Doh, I meant the /80 of 1C for interconnects. ::zz::1C::1 and :F in a /112 ...Skeeve -- Skeeve Stevens, CEO eintellego Pty Ltd - The Networking Specialists ske...@eintellego.net / www.eintellego.net Phone: 1300 753 383, Fax: (+612) 8572 9954 Cell +61 (0

Re: IPv6: numbering of point-to-point-links

2011-01-24 Thread Ray Soucy
The only advantage of a 126-bit prefix is if you're using it to take advantage of the short address, and keep all your point-to-point networks in the same address space so that you can easily identify them. This is really only personal preference for network engineers who may not want to be depend

Re: IPv6: numbering of point-to-point-links

2011-01-24 Thread Jack Bates
On 1/24/2011 7:18 AM, bmann...@vacation.karoshi.com wrote: this results in -very- sparse matrix allocation - which is fine, as long as you believe that you'll never run out/make mistakes. personally, i've use /126 for the past 12 years w/o any problems. There isn't an increased mistake risk

Re: IPv6: numbering of point-to-point-links

2011-01-24 Thread Skeeve Stevens
Lasse, We use /112's – last chazwazza being 65k addresses… Requires little effort in remembering the ranges…. With one end being :1 and the other :F This leaves more than enough addresses for HSRP/VRRP and all the other things like it. Also means we can introduce addressing on the link for di

RE: IPv6: numbering of point-to-point-links

2011-01-24 Thread Ronald Bonica
Lasse, draft-ietf-6man-prefixlen-p2p-01 provides some insights. Ron > -Original Message- > From: Lasse Jarlskov [mailto:l...@telenor.dk] > Sent: Monday, January 24, 2011 7:49 AM > To: nanog@nanog.org > Subject: IPv6: numbering of point-to-point-links >

Re: IPv6: numbering of point-to-point-links

2011-01-24 Thread bmanning
On Mon, Jan 24, 2011 at 02:10:48PM +0100, Marco Hogewoning wrote: > > While reading up on IPv6, I've seen numerous places that subnets are now > > all /64. > > > > I have even read that subnets defined as /127 are considered harmful. > > RFC3627, with a lot of discussion in the IETF on this. See

Re: IPv6: numbering of point-to-point-links

2011-01-24 Thread Grzegorz Janoszka
On 24-01-11 13:59, Carlos Friacas wrote: > Using /126s or /127s (or even /120s) is a result of going with the v4 > mindset of conservation. Not only, there are some other advantages of using /126's, like reducing number of ND requests on the link and the size of neighbor tables. -- Grzegorz Jano

Re: IPv6: numbering of point-to-point-links

2011-01-24 Thread Marco Hogewoning
> While reading up on IPv6, I've seen numerous places that subnets are now > all /64. > > I have even read that subnets defined as /127 are considered harmful. RFC3627, with a lot of discussion in the IETF on this. See also https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-6man-prefixlen-p2p/ > Howev

Re: IPv6: numbering of point-to-point-links

2011-01-24 Thread Carlos Friacas
Hi Lasse, We use /64s. ::1 for one end, ::2 for the second end. Using /126s or /127s (or even /120s) is a result of going with the v4 mindset of conservation. With a /32 you have 65536 /48s, and then 65536 /64s. Guess you only need 1 /48 for all the p-to-p links, no? Regards, Carlos (portu